You added the gloss: "not the magisterium." But the statement doesn't specify a "not" clause. It leaves it open.
Now, of course we Catholics believe, in addition to our belief that Scripture is the final authority, that the bishops in apostolic succession are the authoritative interpreters of that final authority. The statement leaves the question of who interprets Scripture unspecified--because among Wheaton's constituency, a variety of approaches to ecclesial authority for interpreting Scripture are to be found.
The statement does not say "we believe that the Scriptures naked of any interpretation are the final authority." It presumes that Scripture will be interpreted--this statement itself is an interpretation of Scripture.
Evangelicals also have a magisterium to interpret scripture but they don't agree about what constitutes it, so Wheaton's statement can't specify whether it's our Catholic bishop-magisterium or an Episcopalian bishop-magisterium or a Presbyterians synodal magisterium or a Bible-Church Pastor Lone Ranger magisterium. The Presbyterians don't leave Scripture as the naked final authority--they have a well defined magisterial interpretation called the Westminster Confession as interpreted by synods and presbyteries or by bishops and laypeople attending Convention etc. For Baptists and Bible Churches, their magisterium is their pastor and, in varying forms, the denominational conventions of which their congregations are members. But Wheaton can't specify the Westminster Confession or Augsburg Confession or Southern Baptist Convention statement of doctrine without thereby excluding one or more segments of their constituency.
Regarding all human beings born with a sinful nature--we believe that. We believe Mary and Christ are the exceptions. The statement takes no position one way or the other on whether "all" admits of exceptions. Had it specified, "We believe that all human beings without exception are born with a sinful nature" it would exclude Catholics (and the Church Fathers). But it doesn't say that. Once more, you read something into it. The statement could easily be rewritten to specfically exclude Catholic believes about bishops, sacraments etc. but if they did that it would exclude a lot of high church Episcopalians and they don't want to do that.
Catholics believe that Christ's shed blood is what forgives our sins. Where in the world did you get the idea otherwise? Now, if they had wanted to say "forgiven by Christ's blood apart from sacraments or baptism" that would exclude Catholics, but also Lutherans and Episcopalians. So they left it loosey-goosey.
You quoted the statement: "WE BELIEVE that all who receive the Lord Jesus Christ by faith are born again of the Holy Spirit and thereby become children of God"
Then you commented: "Regeneration through faith - not baptism."
But look, the statement does not say "not baptism." It leaves it open. You added a gloss to it, you interpreted it as excluding baptismal regeneration. But Wheaton doesn't want to do that because some Wheaton constituents do believe in baptismal regeneration. Not many. Most would agree with you. But the statement does not specify, and for good reason. You really don't read carefully. I hope you have a good lawyer when you go to sign contracts.
We believe that the Holy Spirit indwells us (we say he comes to us at baptism while you and most Bible Churchers would say he comes when you are converted and accept Christ by faith and Lutherans say he comes to us at baptism and so forth. You once more added a gloss--you say that when the Wheaton statement says we need the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture, that excludes a Catholic magisterium being needed. But the statement does not make that exclusion--you do in your private interpretation of the Wheaton statement. All the Wheaton statement says is that one can't interpret Scripture without the Holy Spirit. Catholics agree. We believe that the Holy Spirit inspires and leads and moves the bishops in the magisterium. You apparently believe the Catholic magisterium is devoid of the Holy Spirit. Fine. But since we do believe the Holy Spirit works through the magisterium and the magisterium only comes into play when two or more Christians disagree about what the Holy Spirit is telling each of them is the proper understanding of Scripture, our magisterium does not eliminate personal Holy Spirit guidance for individual or groups of Christians as they seek to understand Scripture. Our magisterium only functions to resolve disputes. The various Protestant synods, presbyteries, conventions, pastors etc. also believe that the Holy Spirit works through them to resolve disputes and interpret Scripture rightly. The statement does not specify which form of magisterium dispute-resolving is biblical--and cannot because Wheaton's constituency is all over the map on this question. But for you to insist that the statement's very words exclude the Catholic magisterium is silly. The statement does no such thing. If Wheaton wants to leave it open to all synodal and congregational and episcopal Holy Spirit channels for understanding Scripture while excluding the Catholic Holy Spirit channeled magisterium, it could have been written that way. But it wasn't.
We agree about the universal church being composed of communities of Christ's people. We call them local churches (dioceses further ordered into parishes), Souther Baptists call them congregations, Lutheran's call them synods, Episcopalians call them dioceses and parishes. The statement doesn't specify which of these forms of organization "communities" refers to because if it specified synods it would exclude Episcopalians and if it strictly specified local congregations or assemblies, it would please the Plymouth Brethren and Bible Churches and some Baptists but exclude Presbyterians and Lutherans. So it just says "communities."
And you read "communities" and understand it to exclude our dioceses. If it intended to exclude dioceses it should have said so. It didn't.
I'm sure a lot of people at Wheaton think like you do. They think the statement excludes Catholics because they don't what Catholics do believe and they are so bound up in their own forms of organization and their own beliefs that they read a statement like this and think the only interpretation possible is theirs. But the people who wrote this were smarter than that. Wheaton is not a Presbyterian or Lutheran of Bible Church or Pentecostal school. It aims to be open to all Christians (Catholics excepted). And the simple, embarrassing, fact, is that among Evangelical Protestants, there's a lot of disagreement about worship, sacraments, church government and so forth--disagreement about what "biblcal" means when applied to church government.
If the Wheaton statement specified these things, it could not serve pan-Evangelical constituents. So it doesn't specify. But "everyone knows" that Catholics can't sign this statement--because "everyone knows" that Catholics are "so different from us Evangelicals." But the dirty little secret is that when you boil beliefs down to a low enough common denominator to embrace everything from Pentecostals through Bible Churchers through Baptists to Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians, you have extended it far enough for Catholics too. If they'd have stopped short of the Episcopalians and Lutherans, it might have worked. They could then have expressly excluded baptismal regeneration and said anyone who believes in it does not belong at Wheaton. But they had to leave it open to that, which opens it to Catholics. If they had specified congregational polity, then Catholics would be excluded, but so would everyone but the Bible Churchers and independent Baptists and Plymouth Brethren. So they simply specified nothing. But that opens it to Catholics.
You don't like to hear this but it's simply what the statement--before you rewrote it with your glosses--says. Or more accurately, does not say. The statement studiously does not say what your glosses say it says.